[PATCH] ld: testsuite: Skip "Run with libpr19553c.so" test on Solaris

[Jan Beulich]

On 28.07.2025 13:23, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
>> On 28.07.2025 11:49, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> The
>>>
>>> FAIL: Run with libpr19553c.so
>>>
>>> test FAILs on Solaris (32 and 64-bit, sparc and x86):
>>>
>>> Running: tmpdir/pr19553c > tmpdir/pr19553c.out
>>> diff tmpdir/pr19553c.out /vol/src/gnu/binutils/hg/master/local/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/pr19553c.out
>>> 1c1
>>> < pr19553b
>>> ---
>>>> pr19553c
>>> child process exited abnormally
>>>
>>> The test uses .symver, resulting in versioned symbols which the Solaris
>>> ld.so.1 doesn't support and never will.  Running it with LD_DEBUG=all
>>> shows
>>>
>>> 26493: 1: symbol=foo;  lookup in file=tmpdir/pr19553c  [ ELF ]
>>> 26493: 1: symbol=foo;  lookup in file=tmpdir/libpr19553c.so  [ ELF ]
>>> 26493: 1: symbol=foo;  skipping entry in file=tmpdir/libpr19553c.so, index[7], version=FOO, due to GNU version hidden bit
>>> 26493: 1: symbol=foo;  continuing lookup in file=tmpdir/libpr19553c.so  [ ELF ]
>>> 26493: 1: symbol=foo;  lookup in file=tmpdir/libpr19553b.so  [ ELF ]
>>> 26493: 1: binding file=tmpdir/pr19553c to file=tmpdir/libpr19553b.so: symbol 'foo'
>>> so this patch skips the test.
>>>
>>> Ok for trunk?
>>
>> With the patch subject changed to match this email's subject: Yes. Yet better
> 
> Certainly: I always take the subject from the mail.

I see. That wasn't clear though from the submission.

>  In this case, I'd
> meant to just xfail the test until I realized that there's no easy way
> to do so.

Plus xfail-ing wouldn't have been quite right, when you say that versioned
symbols will never be supported by Solaris' linker/loader.

Jan